









■■;\..^^' 



•\/ ^o^'-^-/ \'^-?\/ -°,'^3?-/ 










I". *-^o* 





J-^-v^ '. 




























^^ 



^' 
























ASPECTS OF COLLEGE 

AND 

UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION 



a report to the 
^ Trustees of Dartmouth College 

BY 

HARRY EDWIN BURTON, Ph.D., 

Daniel Webster Professor of the Latin Language 
and Literature 



Published by the College 

Hanover, N. H. 

1916 



»>. 



Gift 

Mrs. Wm.H. Baldwin 
Feb. 25 1927 



o.^^ 

<?/^ 

v^^ 



ASPECTS OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY 
ADMINISTRATION 

To THE Trustees of Dartmouth College: — 
Gentlemen : 

I have the honor to submit a report of conditions in various 
colleges and universities, based upon an investigation undertaken 
at your invitation during the second semester of the year 1915-1916. 

Between February 1 and June 1, I visited the following institu- 
tions in the order given : Yale University, Columbia University, 
Princeton University, Western Reserve University, the Ohio State 
University, Oberlin College, the University of Michigan, the Uni- 
versity of Chicago, the University of Denver, the University of 
Colorado, Colorado College, Occidental College, Pomona College, 
the University of California, Stanford University, Reed College, 
the University of Washington, the University of Minnesota, the 
University of Wisconsin, Williams College, Amherst College. 

In the early part of the year 1916-1917 I made a supplementary 
trip, visiting Brown University and Harvard University. Every- 
where administrative officers and members of faculties were 
courteous and hospitable and discussed conditions in their institu- 
tions with perfect frankness. I was particularly glad to meet in 
other universities and colleges many who had been students or 
teachers at Dartmouth and who were therefore in a position to 
make comparisons. 

I realize that my report is by no means exhaustive. There are 
many other institutions which I should have been glad to visit, had 
there been time. It will of course be understood when I make 
general statements that I am referring only to those colleges and 
universities which are included in this report. I realize also that 
many subjects treated might be of interest to the faculty rather 
than to the trustees, but it has seemed best to include in one report 
all the matters which I have had opportunity to investigate. 

I. Trustees 

Boards of trustees or regents show a wide variation in numbers, 
those of the endowed institutions being in general much larger 
than those of the state universities. Ohio State, for example, has 
only six members on its board, the University of Colorado seven, 
while Pomona has 29, Princeton 30, and Brown 47 (including 
fellows and trustees). Dartmouth with only twelve, has a smaller 



board than any of the other endowed institutions, with the excep- 
tion of Harvard, whose governing board — called the corporation — 
consists of the president and six fellows. Harvard, however, has, 
in addition to the corporation, a board of overseers of 30 members, 
elected from and by the alumni, whose approval is necessary in the 
case of all important appointments and statutes or standing votes 
affecting the general policies of the university. 

Alumni representation on the governing board (that is, the elec- 
tion of members by the alumni) is the rule in endowed institutions, 
at least in the east and in the middle states. Dartmouth, with five 
alumni trustees, has a larger proportion of alumni representation 
than any other, unless we may regard the Harvard board of over- 
seers as an integral part of the governing board. Williams has five 
in a total of sixteen ; Amherst five in a total of seventeen ; Yale six 
in a total of sixteen ; Oberlin six in a total of twenty-four ; Prince- 
ton five in a total of thirty. Among the eastern institutions Brown 
is peculiar in that some of its trustees are not graduates of the uni- 
versity. 

The boards of regents of the state universities are either appointed 
by the governor of the state or are elected by popular vote, and in 
general there is no effort to secure the services of graduates of the 
institution, a situation that is somewhat surprising to an eastern 
college man. The University of Colorado has not a single alumnus 
on its board. Michigan is the only exception ; the eight members 
are usually graduates of the university. The damage that may be 
done by a non-graduate or non-academic board is illustrated by a 
recent experience of the University of Washington, when an at- 
tempt was made to secure the appointment of regents who would 
change the lease of certain university property, to the detriment of 
the university and the profit of various individuals. The attempt 
was foiled only by great activity on the part of the alumni. At the 
University of Minnesota they rather pride themselves on the fact 
that politics do not enter into the selection of the regents, who are 
appointed by the governor ; and I was interested in the significance 
of a remark of an officer of the university, who, speaking of the 
regents, said: "They don't interfere with the university very much." 

There is great variety in the attitude of boards of trustees or 
regents toward their institutions, especially in the powers delegated 
to faculties. There is, I think, a growing tendency all over the 
country to increase the administrative powers of the faculty. At 
Oberlin, where this has gone further than anywhere else, the 
trustees appear to have only two functions ; they manage invest- 
ments and they adopt, as a matter of form, the recommendations 
of the faculty. The faculty is practically the board of control ; it 
discusses and recommends even the expenditure of money and the 
erection of new buildings ; and, although salaries are low — thev 
are virtually fixed by the faculty itself — I must admit that I found 
nowhere a more- contented or more interested faculty than that at 



Oberliii, except, possibly, at Yale, which, in certain aspects of 
faculty control, must be placed close to Oberlin. 

The growing tendency of trustees to delegate administrative 
functions to the faculty is manifested chiehy ni two ways, — first, 
in the matter of appomtments to the teachnig body, of which i 
shall speak later, and secondly in the creation of jomt committees 
of trustees and faculty. At Amherst and Pomona there are com- 
mittees of this sort having charge of grounds and buildings. At 
Wisconsin there is an annual meeting of the regents and a com- 
mittee of the faculty, but the functions ot the joint meeting are 
not definite and nothing of importance seems to nave been accom- 
plished. At Princeton, a conference committee, consisting of a 
committee of the trustees and a committee of the faculty, was 
created last year and has at least the possibility of becoming an 
active and useful element in the administration of the university. 
One of its functions is the recommendation to the trustees of candi- 
dates for honorary degrees, at the suggestion of the various de- 
partments. The trustees last year adopted a recommendation of 
this committee that members of the faculty should not be permitted 
to do tutoring during term time. 

At Yale there is no joint committee, but the permanent officers 
of the university lunch with the members of the corporation once 
each term, and there are faculty representatives on certain com- 
mittees of the corporation. Moreover, the university council, com- 
posed of the administrative officers of the university and repre- 
sentatives of the faculties, acts as a sort of advisory board for the 
corporation. At Oberlin the prudential committee, which acts for 
the trustees in almost all matters, is composed of the president, 
two resident trustees, the deans, the treasurer, the secretary, and the 
superintendent of buildings. At Reed there is a similar committee, 
the welfare committee, consisting of the president, two trustees, 
and two members of the faculty elected by the faculty. 

It must be confessed that, except at Oberlin and Reed, the idea 
of joint deliberations of trustees and faculty is still in its infancy. 
We are still far from adopting the plan convincingly advocated by 
President Schurman and others of having faculty representatives 
on the board of trustees. As a beginning, however, I have been 
favorably impressed with the possibilities of this scheme of joint 
committees, not only as a means of giving to the trustees valuable 
information, but as tending to develop in the faculty an increased 
sense of responsibility and loyalty. 

II. The Budget 

In most institutions the budget is prepared by the trustees or by 
a committee of the trustees without previous discussion or recom- 
mendation on the part of the faculty or a committee of the faculty. 
The only exceptions I have noted are Oberlin, where the 



budget is prepared by the faculty and is submitted to the trustees 
for their approval; Minnesota, where it is first considered by a 
faculty committee called the advisory committee; and Reed, where 
all proposed recommendations of the president relating to the bud- 
get are first submitted to a faculty council of eight members; 
unless five agree, the matter goes to a small joint committee of 
trustees and faculty. 

In other institutions department heads are usually consulted re- 
garding the needs of their departments. At Harvard, Yale, Col- 
umbia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and California, each department head 
in consultation with his department prepares a budget, and, in 
most of these institutions, the department budgets pass through the 
hands of the dean before reaching the president. 

In most of the smaller institutions the process is quite informal — 
a personal interview of the president with the department head. 
At Williams, on the other hand, each department head is required 
to submit at the end of each year a report of the work of his depart- 
■ ment, which is afterward printed, and at the same time a budget 
for his department for the following year. This report of the 
work of departments at Williams is, so far as I know, unique, ex- 
cept as such material is included in the reports of presidents and 
deans. 



HI. The President 

It may not be improper to record some impressions regarding 
college presidents. The position of the president and his activities 
are usually determined rather by his disposition than by law or 
tradition. I was interested in the statement of several presidents 
that the president should regard himself rather as a member of the 
faculty than as a member of the board of trustees. As a matter 
of fact, in several institutions, for example the Case School in 
Cleveland, the University of Michigan, and Leland Stanford, he 
is not a member of the board. In some institutions the president's 
powers have been restricted by delegating certain functions to the 
faculty, especially the recommendation of new members of the 
faculty. At Stanford the president must consult the advisory 
board of the faculty regarding all important executive acts. At 
Colorado College an interesting experiment has been put into oper- 
ation on the resignation of President Slocum. The faculty nomin- 
ated six members from whom the trustees have chosen three, who 
will perform all administrative functions hitherto belonging to the 
president, at least until the election of a new president. 

Speaking broadly, there are two types of college presidents — 
the autocratic and the non-autocratic. The autocratic president 
believes in complete centralized power and more or less frankly 
runs the institution. He appoints all committees, is himself a mem- 



ber of several, and dominates the committees of which he is a 
member. 1 find that a president of this type is subject to the private 
criticism of members of his faculty ; in faculty meeting he may be 
violently attacked or, on the other hand, the meeting may exhibit 
only a peaceful acquiescence in matters which are known to be 
foregone conclusions. The autocratic president may administer 
his institution with great success, but the non-autocratic president, 
or the one who at least does not openly exercise despotic power, 
finds a better disposition in his faculty, — a spirit of content, a great- 
er interest, a feeling of personal responsibility for the affairs of the 
institution. 

Incidentally I may say that I found almost no college or univer- 
sity in which the president does not publish an annual report. In 
many cases this is accompanied by a report of the dean or deans 
and other officials. This seems to me an exceedingly valuable thing, 
not only as offering information to alumni and others, but as 
cry^alizing certain problems for the consideration of trustees or 
faculty. 



IV. The Dean 

The duties and powers of college deans are more or less exten- 
sive in the various institutions, but, speaking generally, deans 
appear to be the busiest of all college officers. The amount, of work 
done by some of them is prodigious. For example. Dean Jones at 
Yale, in addition to the routine work of the office, presides in 
faculty meetings, appoints all committees, and, in consultation with 
the president, determines the amount of salaries ; he has a special 
committee appointed by himself which he consults on important 
matters. Dean Leutner at Western Reserve appoints all com- 
mittees, is a member of several, and does most of the work of the 
committees of which he is a member; he appoints the advisors and 
practically controls the matter of discipline for low scholarship. 

In the smaller institutions and, in fact, in some of the larger 
ones, the dean carries one or more courses. It seems to be a pre- 
vailing opinion that every dean should do some teaching. At 
Wisconsin and Minnesota the dean prepares the budget. 

At some of the universities, — for example, Harvard, Princeton, 
Chicago, and California, — there is a dean of the faculty, a sort of 
vice-president, with none of the functions usually assigned to a 
dean. At Chicago there are twelve deans, not including those of 
the professional schools ; five of these are deans of the so-called 
junior colleges, their functions being those of class-officers or 
advisors. 



V. The Faculty 
Appointment^ Promotion and Dismissal 

In many of the institutions visited there is some method of 
faculty recommendation in the matter of appointment, promotion, 
and dismissal, of officers of instruction. In some the whole faculty 
of permanent officers makes recommendations to the trustees ; in 
others the work is done by a committee of the faculty. At Yale 
the first system appears in its most developed form. In the case of 
a candidate for an instructorship or the first term of an assistant 
professorship, the department concerned recommends directly to 
the faculty ; in the case of a candidate for a professorship or the 
second term of an assistant professorship (that is, a position that 
may be regarded as permanent), the dean appoints a committee 
(partly from the department concerned, partly from related de- 
partments, and partly from unrelated departments) ; this commit- 
tee considers candidates and makes recommendations to the govern- 
ing board of the faculty, which consists of all the full professors. 
It is said that both the committees and the faculty consider candi- 
dates with the greatest care, and that it is not uncommon for the 
faculty to reject candidates recommended by the committees. The 
recommendations of the faculty are practically always adopted by 
the corporation. 

The Yale faculty is enthusiastic regarding its appointment sys- 
tem. Dean Jones, for example, says that a group knows more than 
any one man ; that the system creates esprit de corps and a sense 
of responsibility. It is claimed also that it stimulates 
the interest of departments in one another. On the other 
hand, several prominent officers of other institutions made the 
identical criticism that the Yale faculty is mediocre and that its 
mediocrity is due to the method of appointment ; that it tends to 
keep out a man not socially attractive. To me personally, laying 
aside the question of mediocrity, the explanation was not convinc- 
ing. I do not believe that the Yale faculty is in any large degree 
influenced by the social qualities of candidates. A counter claim 
might be made to the effect that Yale is conspicuously well equipped 
with good teachers, that personal qualities are important in the 
teacher, if not in the investigator, and that the Yale system allows 
a consideration of personal qualities which would hardly be possible 
under a one-man appointment system. 

At Western Reserve and at Oberlin the system is similar to that 
at Yale. At Western Reserve the committee for preliminary con- 
sideration of candidates consists of members of the department 
concerned and of related departments. The faculty (that is, the 
full professors) in the year 1913-1914 held thirteen meetings for 
the consideration of candidates. At Oberlin the president is usually 
a member of the appointment committee. The faculty, — that is, 
the permanent officers, called the council, — recommends to the 

. 8 



prudential committee, the joint committee before mentioned. This 
committee usually takes final action, without reference to the whole 
board of trustees. In both institutions the president and the mem- 
bers of the faculty are enthusiastic advocates of the system. 

At Stanford, Reed, Minnesota, and Washington, recommenda- 
tion is made by a committee, without reference to the faculty. At 
Stanford there is an advisory board of nine professors, and no 
appointment is recommended to the trustees without the approval 
of this board. The president, though not a member of the board, 
has the initiative in. the matter of appointment and no recommend- 
ations originate in the board itself. I may quote from the report of 
the committee of trustees which recommended this method of 
appointment: — "Public spirit dies where we are debarred from 
public action ; professors are interested in their departments, but 
nobody except the president considers officially the whole univer- 
sity or particpates ofiic'ially in its control." 

At Reed the president makes recommendation to a faculty coun- 
cil of eight members. Unless five agree, the matter is referred to a 
joint committee consisting of the president, two trustees, and two 
members of the faculty. President Foster believes this to be the 
ideal system. In School and Society for April 22, 1916, he states 
its advantages for president, trustees, and faculty. His argument 
is convincing and the whole article, under the title "Faculty Partic- 
ipation in College Government," is most illuminating. 

At Minnesota a committee of the faculty discusses appointments, 
promotions, and dismissals and makes recommendations, through 
the dean, to the board of regents. The recommendations are always 
adopted and President Vincent regards the system as a great help 
to the president. In several cases dismissal has been recommend- 
ed by this committee. 

At the University of Washington the faculty have no responsibil- 
ity for appointments, but in the matter of promotions there is an in- 
teresting svstem. Every teacher is considered for promotion at the 
end of a five-year term; if it is a question of promotion from an 
associate orofessorship to a full professorship, all the professors 
consider the case ; if from an assistant professorship to an associate 
professorship, all the professors of the group of related depart- 
ments; if from an instructorship to an assistant professorship, the 
members of the department only. If a teacher is not promoted at 
the end of a five-year term, he may be considered at any time there- 
after. 

In other institutions visited the system is less definite. At Michi- 
gan the president sometimes appoints a committee of the faculty 
to consider the appointment of a full professor. It is perhaps sig- 
nificant of the feeling in institutions of this type that at Michigan 
faculty meetines are rarely held and that few men take any interest 
in the university outside of their own departments. 



At California the president may, if he wishes, consult a commit- 
tee of heads of related departments regarding a contemplated 
appointment. It may be said that some members of the California 
faculty are critical of existing conditions and strongly in favor of 
greater faculty powers. The claim is made that the dignity of a 
faculty is maintained only if it has administrative functions. It is 
true at least that faculty meetings at California have a meagre 
attendance and there is apparently little interest in the administra- 
tion or condition of the university. At the other institutions visited 
appointments and promotions are made on the recommendation of 
the president, in consultation with the heads of the departments 
concerned. At some of these places, however, there is much talk of 
the desirability of increased faculty power. 

I have myself been convinced, not only by the arguments in favor 
of faculty recommendation but also by conditions in those institu- 
tions where it is in operation, that it is highly beneficial for a faculty 
either as a whole, or through a committee, to have the power of 
recommendation in these matters. Between the two general 
methods, in spite of the apparent success of the former at Yale, 
Western Reserve, and Oberlin, I am in favor of the delegation of 
this power to a large committee, without reference to the faculty. 
There is, I think, less danger of political manipulation. Moreover, 
many members of so large a body as a faculty must inevitably 
fail to give much personal consideration to matters under discus- 
sion ; their feeling of responsibility would be slight and their votes 
would depend in some degree upon the persuasiveness of speakers. 

Committees of the Faculty 

In addition to the ordinary committees which are found in one 
form or another in most colleges there are some of a more or less 
unusual nature which are worth noting. 

At Chicago a special committee was appointed last year whose 
function is to standardize the quality and quantity of work required 
in the various courses. This committee will consider the amount 
of time required for preparation and the nature of examinations ; 
it will question good students who have taken the courses in recent 
years as to the preparation required and the value of the courses. 
The Chicago faculty is sceptical of the ability of the committee to 
get the needed information and in general is not hopeful of results. 

The College of Science, Literature, and the Arts at Minnesota 
has only two committees, — the advisory committee and the admin- 
istrative board. The advisory committee is selected by the presi- 
dent and dean from a list of nominations of the faculty ; but those 
having the most votes are invariably chosen. This committee has 
no powers ; it is' strictly advisory. Among other things it recom- 
mends appointments, promotions, dismissals, and salaries. There 
is a similar committee at Stanford. The administrative 

10 



board is composed of the assistant dean (chairman), the dean, the 
dean of women, the dean of the School of Education, and two 
members chosen by the faculty. It has wide functions, including 
admission, and discipline for low scholarship. The members carry 
only about half of the regular amount of teaching. There is also 
at Minnesota a university committee of five members on intramural 
sports, — the only faculty committee of this sort that I have found. 

The two important committees at Reed have already been men- 
tioned. The council is composed of the president and eight mem- 
bers elected by the faculty. All proposed recommendations of the 
president to the trustees relating to appointments, promotions, dis- 
missals, salaries, and budget must be presented to the council. In 
case five members are in opposition, the matter is submitted to the 
welfare committee, which consists of the president, two trustees, 
and two members of the faculty, elected by the faculty. 

At California the welfare committee considers the personal wel- 
fare of the faculty as a whole, or of individual members. The 
chairman is an emeritus professor. The committee is self-perpet- 
uatins:. It has several times appealed successfully to the regents on 
behalf of a member of the faculty in distress on account of illness 
or debt ; and on other occasions has saved members of the faculty 
who were in danger of losing their positions and ruining their 
academic careers. It induced the regents to appropriate a con- 
siderable sum of money for the faculty club. 

Class-Officers and Advisors 

Class-officers are found in only a few places and those, with two 
exceptions, small institutions. They are Yale, Amherst, Colorado 
College, Occidental, Pomona, and Chicago. At Yale the class- 
ofificer is a kind of assistant dean ; he presides in the class faculty 
meeting, an administrative device that was abandoned some years 
ago at Dartmouth. He has, with the students of his class, only 
such relations as may be formed in a dean's office. At Amherst 
the class-officers have a similar function and constitute the admin- 
istration committee. At Occidental and Pomona the class-ofificers 
are the only advisors, but their relation with students is academic 
rather than personal. At Chicago there are five deans for the 
freshman and sophomore classes ; they are practically class-officers 
or advisors under another name. 

Advisory systems are found nearly everywhere, and this matter 
has in the past few years been given so much attention in the col- 
lege world that I shall treat it in some detail, giving the systems 
found in the various institutions and the criticisms of those who 
are familiar with their operation. 

At Yale the advisors — called division officers — are appointed by 
the class-officers. Each looks after from 20 to 35 students, fresh- 
men and sophomores, but it is admitted that they do little for 

11 



sophomores. Registrar Merritt says that the system is of Httle use ; 
that it is unwise to give too much advice to students and, in any 
case, they do not want it. As usual, a few of the advisors accom- 
plish something, but Dean Jones says the system is not worth the 
trouble. The relation is largely official and disciplinary ; it rarely 
becomes personal. The members of the faculty with whom I 
talked agreed unanimously with the views expressed by the admin- 
istrative officers. 

At Amherst there are advisors for all classes, but the advisory 
relation is frankly not intended to be a personal one; it seems to 
involve little more than approval of elective cards. At Williams 
all freshman instructors are utilized as advisors, but the system is 
not well organized. In 1915-1916 assignments were not made until 
Christmas. Students rarely see their advisors and the system is 
said to be more or less of a farce. Dean Ferry believes that no 
advisory system is good for anything. 

The system at Columbia was established with the idea that the 
advisor would become the personal friend of his students. But the 
relationship has in most cases became purely academic, chiefly for 
the approval of elections. Each advisor has from ten to fifteen 
students. Professor Jones, director of admissions, thinks it a good 
thing for freshmen, but others regard it as of very little value. 

At Princeton the freshman class is divided into twenty sections 
and each has an advisor. There are no advisors beyond freshman 
year. Registrar Jones believes the system entirely artificial and in- 
effective, and tells a story of sending a student to his advisor who 
telephoned the registrar to ask why the student was sent to him, 
as he had never seen him before. The few advisors who are of 
any use, he says, would give advice to a group of students anyway. 
Dean McClenahan, who has charge of the system, thinks it works 
well in some cases ; and that at least it makes a good impression 
on parents. But he admits that he has put in some seniors as 
advisors, that they are much better, and that he hopes ultimately to 
use seniors altogether. With one exception the members of the 
faculty with whom I talked regarded the faculty advisory system 
as nearly or quite useless. 

At Western Reserve there is the anomaly of advisors for upper- 
classmen and none for freshmen. The dean makes the appoint- 
ments and says the system is of little use. There is no personal 
relation. When a student has selected his major study, a member 
of that department becomes his advisor. At Ohio State 
there was once a system, but it fell into disuse, and now the 
Y. Mw C. A. and the Y. W. C. A. appoint senior advisors. At 
Oberlin the dean is the only advisor of freshmen. At the end of 
freshman year each student selects an advisor for the rest of his 
course. At the beginning of junior year he chooses his major and 
the head of the department becomes a second advisor. Both sign 
the elective cards. There is no personal relation. 

12 



At Michigan various systems have been tried, but in the College 
of Literature, Science, and the Arts all have been discarded. Now 
the women have appointed juniors as advisors, and the plan is 
working well ; the men are considering a similar system. The 
School of Engineering has one of the few successful faculty ad- 
visory systems I have found. Each instructor (called a "mentor") 
has ten students (called "mentees") and retains the same ones 
throughout the course. The relation is personal as well as acad- 
emic, and the system is said to be working very well. 

At Chicago the advisory system has been abandoned. The 
deans and the heads of departments in which students take their 
majors act as advisors. The women have student advisors assigned 
by the Y. W. C. A. At Wisconsin the dean assigns freshmen, in 
varying numbers, to members of the faculty. At the beginning of 
junior year the student comes under the supervision of a member 
of his major department. There is no attempt at a personal rela- 
tion. Members of the faculty differ as to the value of the system. 

Faculty advisors are still appointed at Minnesota for freshmen 
and sophomores, though the president, the assistant dean, who 
makes the assignments, and many members of the faculty agree 
that the system is a dead letter and that the advisors are useless. 
As a matter of fact, though still appointed, they have been super- 
seded in their activities by senior advisors for both men and 
women, and the assistant dean is enthusiastic about their work. 
On registration day the student council has a group of students at 
hand to help freshmen. Each freshman is at that time assigned 
to a senior and urged to go to him at once. 

At the University of Colorado each advisor has about fourteen 
students. The relation is academic and Dean Hellems is doubtful 
of its value. At Colorado College practically all members of the 
faculty are advisors for freshmen and sophomores ; each has about 
eight. The relation is supposed to be personal, but there is a 
general agreement in the faculty that it works out in that way in 
only a few cases. 

Until this year the University of California had a unique ar- 
rangement. Forty or fifty members of the faculty were appointed 
advisors by the dean of the lower college. The relation between 
advisor and students was supposed to be personal, and each advisor 
was paid $100 a year for the purposes of entertainment. But in 
spite of this generosity the system was a failure and was abandoned. 
Dean Putnam reports the result of an investigation as follows : — 
"It was clear that the relationship of freshman and advisor was 
regarded by a large portion of the student body as perfunctory 
and artificial and that much of the effort of the advisors, though 
conscientiously given, was on this account being wasted. While 
no doubt some freshmen have been very decidedly benefited by the 
acquaintanceship with their faculty advisors. I am convinced that 
this system cannot be made wholly successful unless a more natural 

13 



relationship between student and advisor can be found." 
{President's Report, 1914-1915, p. 158) Two hundred seniors 
have been appointed as advisors, and in the latter part of a 
student's course he comes under the care of an instructor in his 
major department. 

At Stanford the only advisor is a graduate student, who is a 
member of the student council and acts as advisor for the whole 
university. 

At Reed students select their advisors. At the time of registra- 
tion they are required to visit all their instructors and choose one 
as advisor. An instructor may have none or as many as twenty 
students. In later years most students have as advisor an instructor 
in their major subject. A personal relation is often established and 
the system is said to work very well. 

The function of the advisor at the University of Washington is 
usually limited to a scrutiny of the elective card. At the beginning 
of junior year the student comes under the charge of the head of 
his major department. The relation in both cases is academic. 
For personal advice there are a dean of men and a dean of women, 
who are responsible for the life of the dormitories and the frater- 
nity and sorority houses, and are constantly consulted by individuals. 

The Brown system is similar to that at Dartmouth. Service on 
the advisory board is voluntary and each advisor has from five to 
seven students, all freshmen, though the relation — a personal one 
as at Dartmouth — sometimes continues through the four years. 
Some members of the faculty believe that the system justifies its 
existence, though one man admitted that he never sees most of 
his students after their first call ; and another estimated that only 
one out of ten gets any help from it. The Brown system is supple- 
mented by a series of lectures to freshmen on the opportunities 
offered by the university, methods of work in lecture-room and 
laboratory, college life, etc. 

At Harvard there was, until recently, an advisory system for 
freshmen only, with twenty to twenty-five students assigned to 
each member of the board. This proved to be unsuccessful, as was 
also the use of seniors as advisors. Now service is compulsory ex- 
cept in the case of members of the faculty who are excused. Four 
or five freshmen are assigned to each advisor ; he is supposed to 
act as their advisor throughout their course, and he has a hold on 
them from the fact that he must sign their elective cards. One 
man told me that he knew all his students intimately ; another, that 
he maintained a connection with about half, but that there were 
many members of the faculty who believed that the system was 
not worth the trouble. 

I may mention here an interesting device recently put into oper- 
ation at Harvard, — the scholarship service bureau, organized by 
Phi Beta Kappa. An executive committee of members of the 
society has associated with itself a group of students of high rank 

14 



who are willing to give assistance — advice, not instruction — with- 
out payment. The committee keeps an office-hour and assigns to 
a member of the group each student who makes application. It is 
not a tutoring bureau. The student advisor helps the other in the 
selection of his courses and makes suggestions regarding methods 
of study, the taking of notes, etc. The system is regarded as bene- 
ficial for both parties. 

It is apparent that, nearly everywhere, faculty advisory systems 
have been a more or less complete failure. Where no personal 
relation is sought, the consensus of opinion regards the system as 
not worth the trouble ; in the few institutions that have under- 
taken to establish a personal relation, it is agreed that the relation 
is artificial and that the system is a farce. It is astonishing that 
so many retain a system which they frankly admit to be practically 
useless. 

At Dartmouth we have carried the advisory idea rather further 
than any other college. In fact, we have a double system, that of 
class-officers and faculty advisors. The advisors are supposed to 
be the personal friends of their students ; otherwise they have no 
reason for existence, as they do not even sign elective cards, the 
only function of faculty advisors in many places. If we are main- 
taining this system successfully, we are doing a thing that few 
institutions have been able to accomplish. Personally I am some- 
what sceptical and I should be interested in the results of an invest- 
igation, undertaken preferably by the dean. 

Except at Harvard the senior advisory system has been success- 
ful wherever it has been tried, but in none of these places, I think, 
are fraternity conditions just what they are at Dartmouth, and I 
should be doubtful of its success here. As a matter of fact we do 
not need a substitute for faculty advisors. We have a system al- 
ready established, — the class-officers. 

Our freshman and sophomore class-officers in the last few years 
have been not mere college officials but real advisors. We have 
actually tried out two systems side by side and, to my mind, the 
class-officers have undoubtedly won. If I had not seen the failure 
of faculty advisory systems in so many places, I should have been 
inclined to regard the activity of the class-officers as responsible for 
the very doubtful success of our advisory system. As it is, I 
believe we should simply congratulate ourselves upon having al- 
ready in operation a better system. The amount of teaching of 
the freshman and sophomore class-officers should probably be re- 
duced. It is possible that there should be two freshman class- 
officers, like the deans of the junior colleges at Chicago, who would 
divide the class between them. But in one form or another I 
believe the class-officer system is the solution of the advisory 
problem. 



15 



Grading Systems 

Nearly all the institutions visited have, like Dartmouth, adopted, 
with variations, the letter system of marking. Harvard, Brown, 
Williams, Columbia, Chicago, Michigan, Minnesota, Stanford, and 
Washington, like Dartmouth, have only four passing grades. A, B, 
C, and D. California has the same system, though it uses numbers 
instead of letters. At Brown sixty percent is regarded as the 
passing mark, and the letters represent, definitely, ten points each. 
In view of the criticism that our system of only four passing grades 
does not give opportunity for necessary distinctions, it is inter- 
esting to note that Princeton, Western Reserve, Ohio State, Ober- 
lin, and Occidental have five passing grades and Pomona six ; that 
Occidental had only four, but found it necessary to add a fifth ; 
that, while Chicago has only four passing grades, it recognizes 
A — , B — , and C — as official marks, making seven in all ; more- 
over E does not represent a failure, but a condition, with the 
privilege of a second examination. At Williams many of the 
faculty deplore the change from percentages to letters ; they con- 
tinue to hand in plus and minus marks, though these are not record- 
ed at the office. They claim that proper discrimination is impos- 
sible and emphasize the difficulty of awarding prizes. 

Amherst, Wisconsin, and Colorado College retain the percentage 
system and the University of Colorado has gone back from the 
letter system to percentages. Reed has a numerical system, one to 
ten, with eight passing marks, and Yale has a system all its own, 
with marks ranging from zero to 400. It is evident that Dartmouth 
has gone as far as any other college in the matter or reducing the 
number of grades. 

Some institutions have a point system like that at Dartmouth, 
an A mark carrying more points than B, B more than C, etc., with 
the requirement of a minimum number of points for graduation. 
Others content themselves with a limitation of the number of low 
marks accepted for credit. At Columbia, for example, not more 
than one D is counted toward a degree in any one semester. At 
Western Reserve the mark must be F, or better, (the marks are 
E, G, F, P, D, X) in at least thirty three-hour courses. At Chicago 
the student must have an average not lower than C. At Amherst 
he must have an average of at least seventy per cent. 

Nearly everywhere outside of New England there are two grades 
of failure, — a deficiency with the privilege of a second examination, 
and complete failure. Even Princeton retains this element of weak- 
ness. At Oberlin there is a unique but quite logical arrangement : 
a student marked deficient (E) may take a second examination 
unless he is a senior in the second semester. In that case he must 
repeat the course in the summer session or the following year. 

Under certain circumstances a student may be exempt from ex- 
aminations : — at Yale, if he has honor grade (but the instructor 

16 



may use his discretion); at Chicago, seniors of high rank; at 
Minnesota, seniors with no faikires since freshman year and in 
good standing in their courses. 

Discipline for Loxv Scholarship 

With a few exceptions Dartmouth is, in this matter, more severe 
and more automatic than the other institutions I have visited. 
Amherst, Wilhams, Princeton, Pomona and, jDOSsibly, Minnesota 
and Chicago may be grouped with Dartmouth in the more or less 
drastic ehmination of deficient students. In the central states and 
in the west it is generally agreed that the certificate system of 
admission allows many students to enter college who at least for 
several months find college work exceedingly diflftcult ; and it is the 
general attitude of college administrators that such students should 
be treated with leniency. In this, as in other college relations, the 
individual receives more consideration in the west than in most of 
the eastern colleges. 

It is understood, of course, that statements based upon compara- 
tive grades are not necessarily conclusive. Sixty per cent, or a D 
grade, in one institution may mean something quite different from 
what it means in another. 

At Amherst discipline for low scholarship is more severe than 
at Dartmouth, though perhaps not so automatic, — that is, there 
is more consideration of the individual. A student making, in any 
semester, less than fifty per cent in two subjects or less than sixty 
per cent in three is separated. A student making less than fifty 
per cent in a subject in the first semester is not allowed to continue 
it in the second and loses his privilege of absences. 

At Pomona a student who falls below an average of C, or has 
a complete failure in two or more courses, is automatically sepa- 
rated. I may say incidentally that Pomona has a very high repu- 
tation on the Pacific coast. California and Stanford rate her 
graduates among the best of their graduate students. 

At Williams and Princeton, as at Dartmouth, a student must 
pass three-fifths of his work to remain in college. At Princeton 
from 80 to 100 students are separated every year. Each of these 
has the privilege of appearing before the committee, and a fresh- 
man may bring an upperclassman as an advocate. But Dean 
McClenahan says that the rule operates practically without excep- 
tion. At Minnesota discipline is severe, but it is administered 
with great care. President Vincent is strongly opposed to the 
automatic treatment of students for low scholarship, absences, etc. 
Many are very poorly prepared, but they are weeded out rapidly 
in freshman year. Marks are reported every month and students 
are separated at any time, even during the first semester of fresh- 
man year. The system provides for personal interviews and no 
one is separated without previous warning. 

17 



At Chicago a student whose average is below D may be sepa- 
rated at the end of the first or second quarter. After that, a 
student is separated at any time when his grade points fall ten 
below the standard, an allowance of two for each full course. It< 
is said that the automatic application of this rule has had a most 
beneficial effect. 

Other institutions show great variety in severity and in the 
consideration of individual conditions, but, in general, as compared 
with Dartmouth, they are more or less lax, or they carry individual 
treatment so far that it is impossible to discover any definite prin- 
ciple of discipline. In Yale College in 1914-1915 only twenty-five 
were separated for low scholarship, and that is said to have been 
a rather larger number than usual. Freshmen are usually separated 
for failures in three courses, but every case is considered individ- 
ually. Action originates in the class faculty ; from that it goes to 
the dean and class-officer; and then to the college faculty. After 
freshman year very few are separated: — only one in 1914-1915. 
The Yale system is regarded elsewhere as over-lenient. 

At Columbia about twelve freshmen are separated each year. 
Members of the faculty explain that it is unnecessary to send stu- 
dents away, as they may make up their deficiencies in the extension 
courses. 

At Ohio State a student is supposed to be separated if he fails 
more than half his work; but in practice he is allowed to remain 
on probation through another semester. In the central states it is 
the general custom to allow students to remain through the year. 
At Oberlin, if a student in the first semester passes one-third of 
his work, he may continue, but must pass all his courses in the 
second semester. At Michigan there is no fixed rule. Dean 
Effinger believes that each case should be treated individually. At 
Wisconsin there is no rule and it appears that anyone who is sepa- 
rated may apply for immediate readmission. The Colorado insti- 
tutions are notably lax. The Chancellor of the University of 
Denver frankly admits that no one is sent away for low scholar- 
ship, though a student may be deprived of one course and put under 
the special charge of a member of the faculty. At the University 
of Colorado there is a rule that freshmen must pass eight hours, 
others ten hours. If they do not reach that minimum they may 
be suspended. But a suspended student may apply for immediate 
reinstatement on probation ; and many are so reinstated. At Colo- 
rado College no one is separated at the end of the first semester. 
A student who makes less than nine hours is on probation in the 
second semester, and a good many are separated at the end of the 
year. 

With the exception of Pomona, the California institutions also 
are decidedly lax. At Occidental there is a rule that eight semester 
hours must be passed, but in practice very few are separated, — 
not more than one or two at the end of the first semester. Cali- 

18 



fornia, too, has the the eight-hour rule, but in the Colleges of Letters 
and Sciences only three or four are separated in each semester. 
Here, also, I found the peculiar custom of petitioning for imme- 
diate reinstatement. 

At Reed College, in this matter as in all others, every student is 
treated strictly as an individual. There is no rule, and few are 
separated. 

At Brown and Harvard, as at Yale and the western institutions, 
every case is treated individually. At both institutions the authori- 
ties are merciful, and many students are allowed to remain in col- 
lege who have failed in a large part of their work. 

At Brown most students who fail four courses and many who 
fail three out of a total of five are separated. Regarding the Har- 
vard practice I found it difficult to obtain definite information. 
Few are separated at the end of the first half-year. At the end 
of the year a student may be "dropped" or his "connection with 
the college may be severed." In the latter case he may apply for 
readmission at the beginning of the next academic year; and many 
are thus immediately reinstated on the understanding that, if at 
any time their records are unsatisfactory, they will withdraw upon 
request. This is similar to the practice at Ohio State, Wisconsin, 
and California. In the year 1914-1915, twenty-two freshmen were 
dropped (out of a total of 661 new students) ; thirty-one had their 
connection severed and might apply for immediate readmission. 

My observations have not convinced me that it would be wise for 
us to relax our system of discipline for low scholarship, even 
though I have listened to stories of students who were unable to 
do the work of freshman year and ultimately graduated with 
honors. An occasional individual will suffer, but the knowledge 
that three failures mean inevitable dismissal is an incentive so 
valuable to the general condition of the college that I should hesi- 
tate to recommend any change in attitude or practice that might 
weaken its effectiveness. 

It must be said, however, that we should not take too much pride 
to ourselves because we send many students away. As Flexner 
says, *Tt is comparatively simple to extirpate those who appear to 
be the weaker brethren ; but it is not a whit more intelligent than 
to pull every aching tooth." It may well be that the colleges that 
separate a much smaller proportion than we do have a higher 
standard than our own ; that is, their methods may secure more 
work or better results. There is no doubt that our administrative 
officers do their work wisely and thoroughly on the basis of the 
results reported to them, but it is still a question whether we 
are doing all that is possible to stimulate the intellectual interest of 
our students. 



19 



The Treatment of Absences 

I have found nowhere except at Pomona and, possibly, Oberiin 
a mechanism for the regulation of attendance so automatic as the 
Dartmouth system. Cut-systems are practicaUy unknown in the 
west, — that is, there is no definite allowance of absences, — because 
it is assumed that students will attend college exercises as they 
have attended classes in school. In general this assumption is jus- 
tified, and it is an indication of the aifference between the east and 
the west in the attitude of students toward college. 

In the west they speak of going to "school" when they mean col- 
lege. Ihey are more inclined to learn their lessons from day to 
day; it is my impression that a large proportion of failures in 
western colleges is due to poor preparation or natural inability, 
rather than to idleness or other interests. And students do, in gen- 
eral, attend their college exercises as a matter of course. 

Even in the west, however, there are cases of excessive absence 
and there are rules, — but there are many exceptions ; here again 
the individual is always considered. At the University of Denver 
the instructor gives zero for an absence unless the student brings 
an excuse from the office; for three unexcused absences he loses 
credit for the course. The University of Colorado had a cut sys- 
tem with an automatic penalty, loss ot hours ; but the whole system 
was abandoned and the dean now uses his discretion in the treat- 
ment of individual cases. The instructor hands in weekly reports 
to the secretary, who submits to the dean cases that need atten- 
tion; the dean interviews each student, and possibly suspends him. 
As a matter of fact, however, there are very few cases and the 
penalty is rarely needed. At Colorado College the whole matter 
of absences is in the hands of the instructors, who have the power 
to refuse credit for a course. 

At Stanford and California the situation is, at least from the 
eastern viewpoint, chaotic; and I doubt if even the attitude of the 
western student toward his college work justifies the total lack of 
system. At Stanford no record is kept at the office. Each depart- 
ment is supposed to have its own treatment of absences. But 
within the department individual instructors vary; some keep no 
record at all. At California attendance is graded, like scholarship, 
on a basis of one to five. Until recently no record was handed m 
until the end of the course. Now reports are made in the middle 
of the semester. If the instructor marks attendance as deficient 
(4) or a failure (5), the student is summoned by the dean and 
may be put on probation. In practice it appears that certain depart- 
ments are very lax and it is admitted that some instructors keep, 
no record of attendance whatever. 

At Reed, where the western student attitude appears at its best, 
no record of absences is kept at the office, and it is said that stu- 
dents are practically never absent. The same condition holds at 
the University of Washington. 

20 



Pomona has the only cut system I have noted in a western col- 
lege. The student is allowed as many absences as the number of 
semester hours he is taking. For sixteen excessive absences or a 
major fraction thereof, he must take an extra hour; and excessive 
absences accumulate from semester to semester. If in one course 
a student takes twice as many cuts as there are weekly exercises 
he must take an extra hour. And if he takes eight excessive ab- 
sences from assembly (corresponding to our chapel, though all the 
exercises are not religious), he is suspended for one semester. 

The general feeling in the central states is like that in the west, — 
that attendance is not a serious problem. There are no cut systems, 
except at Western Reserve, and rules are in most places loosely 
administered. This is the case especially at Wisconsin, where the 
matter is in the hands of the instructors and, as is almost inevitable 
under this arrangement, there is the greatest laxity. Some instruc- 
tors admit that they keep no record. Excessive absence is rarely 
penalized. There is a tradition that, if a student is absent more 
than one-fifth of the exercises in a course, he must take a make-up 
examination. But as this is a penalty for the instructor as well as 
for the student (in fact it might be considered a privilege for the 
student) the instructor avoids it, if possible. At Chicago a stu- 
dent who has had excessive absences is summoned by the dean and, 
unless he offers satisfactory excuse, is reported to the instructor 
concerned. The latter assigns any penalty or none at all. At the 
University of Ohio the matter of attendance is in the hands of the 
departments. There is a rule that four consecutive absences must 
be reported at the office, but the rule is apparently not observed. 
There are no monitors and no record of absences at the office. 

At Michigan and Minnesota the system is more strict, though 
by no means automatic. At Michigan there is an attendance com- 
mittee to receive excuses, and theoretically every absence must be 
excused ; it is admitted, however, that instructors are careless in the 
matter of reporting. There is no definite penalty for excessive ab- 
sence, except that a student absent more than eighteen hours in a 
course loses the course. It may be said incidentally that in most 
of the large universities little absence is due to athletics and other 
outside activities. One reason is the fact that teams and clubs are 
drawn from the whole university and no one department is seri- 
ously affected. At Minnesota absences are reported at the office 
every day and excessive absences are treated by a faculty commit- 
tee. The two stages of discipline are, first, a warning and then, if 
the absence continues, separation. At Oberlin, where student life 
is perhaps more carefully supervised than in any other college, it is 
not surprising to find strict regulation of attendance. The system 
is very simple : for every absence the student must give a satisfac- 
tory excuse at the office ; if the excuse is not accepted, he is 
reported to the instructor, who gives zero for the absence. 



21 



Western Reserve has a cut system : four cuts are allowed in each 
course. But every absence must be made up and the instructor 
gives a zero until it is made up. There is no fixed penalty for over- 
cutting. Theoretically, more than two unexcused absences in a 
course reduce the grade ; but in practice the penalty is left to the 
discretion of the instructor, who may even drop a student from his 
course for excessive absence. 

In the east all the institutions I have visited, except Harvard, 
have a cut system more or less strictly administered, and with 
various penalties for overcutting. At Columbia, the system is a 
little more generous than at Dartmouth. Instructors keep the 
record ; the office gets only the totals. The committee on instruc- 
tion considers individual cases of excessive absence and decides 
whether the student shall be permitted to take the examination. 
If permitted, he must gain C or better in order to pass the course. 
But departments use their discretion, and there is much variation. 
At Princeton the number of allowed absences from the class-room 
exercises of a year has recently been reduced from 49 to 39. The 
penalty for excessive absences is an extra three hour course. 
Juniors and seniors in the first and second groups and candidates 
for final special honors are excused from compulsory attendance. 

At Yale freshmen are allowed twelve cuts each semester; others, 
fifteen. They are cumulative from semester to semester. All 
allowed cuts may be taken in a single course, but an instructor may 
refuse credit to a man who, in his opinion, has had an excessive 
number of absences. When a student has taken fifteen absences, 
he receives a warning. If his absences continue he is put on pro- 
bation and is required to take extra hours. In honor courses 
attendance is not compulsory. 

At Williams the regular allowance is five per cent of the exer- 
cises in a course ; for students of high rank, ten per cent. There 
is no automatic penalty except that a student who is absent half 
^■he number of exercises in a course loses the course. No cuts are 
allowed in the departments of English, elocution, and physical 
training. At Amherst five cuts are allowed in each semester 
course. There is some laxity, it appears, and there is no check 
upon instructors who neglect to hand in their records. For over- 
cutting in a course a student's grade is reduced five units for each 
absence ; for excessive overcutting he may lose credit for the 
course. The whole matter is in the hands of the dean. 

The system at Brown is well planned and well administered. 
A student is allowed eighteen absences each semester ; there are at 
least in theory no excuses for absences beyond this. If he has 
taken as many as twelve in the middle of the semester he receives 
a warning. If he takes more than eighteen in a semester he may 
have a smaller allowance for the next semester or may be for- 
bidden to take any absence without excuse, under penalty of 
separation. If a student takes an excessive number in one course, 

22 



the instructor may report him to the attendance committee or may 
give zero for absences which he regards as excessive. 

The system at Harvard is very lax and there is a great deal of 
absence. A good student may be absent a considerable part of the 
time without penalty of any sort. There is no cut system and no 
maximum allowance. A student who has been cutting a good deal 
may be called to the office and warned, or may be penalized by 
his instructors ; but his treatment depends largely upon the quality 
of his college work. 

In the matter of attendance the western attitude is decidedly 
worthy of consideration. In the east we have cut systems and 
definite penalties, — at Dartmouth a machinelike system perfectly 
administered, — and we have a good deal of absence, much of 
which is unnecessary. In the west there are no cut systems and 
such rules as exist are loosely administered or absolutely ignored, — 
and the amount of absence is almost negligible. Allowed cuts 
certainly tempt a student to neglect his work without cause and 
the combination cut-and-excuse system results in a good deal of 
absence. 

It is apparent from conditions at Harvard that in the east we 
may not assume that students will attend their college exercises as 
a matter of course. More or less coercion, careful supervision, and 
definite penalties are evidently necessary. It would be an interest- 
ing experiment if some eastern college would abandon the cut sys- 
tem and require the student to attend all his college exercises unless 
excused by the proper authority. 

Faculty Regulation of Student Activities 

The two extremes in this matter are represented best, perhaps, 
by Yale and the University of Wisconsin. At Yale the faculty 
have practically nothing to do with student activities ; there are no 
faculty members on the athletic council, and even the alumni mem- 
bers are appointed by the undergraduates. There is, moreover, no 
systematic supervision of non-athletic activities. At Wisconsin, 
on the other hand, faculty control is practically absolute. A univer- 
sity committee appointed by the president controls all student 
activities, athletic and otherwise. Recently one alumnus and one 
undergraduate have been added to this committee. 

The University of Colorado has an athletic board consisting of 
three faculty members (one is chairman) and three undergrad- 
uates, but on most questions the chairman has two votes. On 
account of the exaggerated interest of the alumni it has been found 
best to eliminate them from the board. At Princeton the athletic 
council consists of three trustees, three members of the faculty, 
three alumni, and three undergraduates. This council has general 
charge of athletics, but a faculty committee has authority in qiies- 
tions of eligibility. Also at Western Reserve and at Minnesota a 

23 



faculty committee decides questions of eligibility, and the Minne- 
sota committee controls athletic finances. The Minnesota com- 
mittee has expelled students who have been convicted of false- 
hood regarding the taking of money for athletics. At Harvard 
Dean Briggs, chairman of the committee on the regulation of ath- 
letic sports, has power in questions of eligibility. y-Vt Ohio State 
the athletic council consists of five members of the university 
faculty, two alumni, and two undergraduates. Other institutions, 
so far as I have noted, have a system like that at Dartmouth, — 
a council consisting of faculty, alumni, and students, the faculty 
members having predominant power only in matters pertaining to 
scholarship and attendance. 

In most places I find that non-athletic activities seem not to re- 
quire much supervision. Princeton has a special faculty commit- 
tee for this purpose. The faculty committee at Wisconsin controls 
all student activities. At Minnesota a committee consisting of two 
members of the faculty, two alumni, and seven students has general 
charge of all activities, though final authority rests with a faculty 
committee of five members. At California a council of faculty, 
alumni, and students controls all activities. In other places I have 
not noted any specific supervision of non-athletic interests. In fact, 
I gained the very definite impression that elsewhere non-athletic 
activities do not play so important a part in student life as they do 
at Dartmouth. 

It is a universal rule that students on probation are not allowed 
to represent the college. In the matter of removal from an organ- 
ization for deficient scholarship during a semester there is varia- 
tion and the Dartmouth custom by comparison appears somewhat 
lax. At Amherst a student is not removed from a team unless he 
is reported as failing in three courses, but he is not allowed to re- 
turn during the semester. At Williams students having two D's 
are removed and are not allowed to return during the semester. 
At Western Reserve a student is removed if at any time he is 
deficient in two subjects, or if he is reported deficient in the same 
subject for two consecutive weeks; and he may not return during 
the semester. At Chicago a student removed from an organization 
is not allowed to return in the same quarter. At Michigan, where 
the control of athletics is very strict, no one who has had a failure 
in the previous semester may represent the college. 

In very few institutions have I found restriction of the number 
of organizations to which a student may belong or the offices he 
may hold. At Oberlin. Minnesota, and Colorado College there 
are point systems ; that is, each activity is rated by points accord- 
ing to the time it is supposed to consume, and no student is per- 
rnitted to carry more than a certain number of points. The restric- 
tion is, however, by no means severe. At Oberlin, for example, a 
student may play in one year football, basketball, and baseball. A 
similar system at Chicago has been abandoned. There is a point 

24 



system at Brown, but it is applied only to ofificial positions,— man- 
agerships, etc. — in the various organizations. At Western Reserve 
membership in more than one organization or participation in 
more than two sports requires the permission of the executive com- 
mittee. At Stanford no student may take part in more than one 
dramatic performance during a semester. 

VI. Undergraduates 
Self -Government 

Under this head there are two points to be considered : — first, 
the composition of the governing body ; secondly, its functions. 

Dartmouth with a council composed entirely of seniors, a major- 
ity of whom are ex-ofificio members, stands practically alone. Only 
Princeton and Minnesota have a system of this sort, and at Minne- 
sota the members are all elected. Elsewhere the council is much 
more representative and, whether for this reason or not, is in 
many places much more active and influential. The usual plan 
provides for one or two freshmen and a gradually increasing num- 
ber from the upper classes. The presidents of the four classes are 
commonly members of the council. Rarely a member of the 
faculty is included. This is the case at the University of Colorado 
and at Colorado College. At Ohio State the president of the 
university has regular meetings with the council. At Stanford the 
chairman of the faculty committee on student affairs attends cer- 
tain meetings of the student conference. At Williams the council 
has joint meetings with a faculty committee. 

There are three things which may come within the powers of a 
student council : — first, general oversight of student affairs, — for 
example, class elections and contests, privileges, and customs ; sec- 
ondly, violations of the honor system ; thirdly, general discipline 
and the assignment of penalties for misdemeanors. In the east 
the activity of the council is usually confined to the first of these 
three things. At Yale there is one council for the college and 
another for the scientific school, both composed of strong, repre- 
sentative men, whose recommendations are practically always 
adopted by the faculty. The council of the scientific school admin- 
isters the honor system. To neither council has the discipline of 
the institution been formally entrusted, as is the case in some west- 
ern colleges ; but both councils appear to be active and useful. 

Brown has no regular council for men ; but the Cammarian 
Club, a self-perpetuating organization, seems to have functions 
similar to those of the Dartmouth Palaeopitus. The women's 
council, through recommendations to the dean of women, is virtu- 
ally in control of disciplinary matters in the women's college. 
Harvard has a council which, except that it has representatives 
from all classes, is like Palaeopitus. Amherst has a council con- 
sisting of five seniors, three juniors, and one sophomore elected by 

25 



their respective classes. It has general supervision of athletics, the 
honor system, college customs, and undergraduate policy. At 
Princeton the councd has the same general and somewhat vague 
functions as is the case in most of the New England colleges. The 
honor system is administered by a special committee, distinct from 
the council. 

In the central states, as in the east, the student council is not an 
important factor in administration. At Western Reserve and 
Minnesota the council administers the honor system, but otherwise 
there seem to be no specific or important duties. At Wisconsin, on 
the other hand, the council has more power and a somewhat 
elaborate organization,- — a legislative body called the conference 
and a court to which cases of discipline may be referred. The 
court has the power of suspension, subject to appeal to the 
faculty. 

In the west students are very much interested in self-govern- 
ment; and in some institutions have acquired complete control in 
all matters of discipline. At Colorado College the student com- 
mission has conferences with the faculty and is entitled to be 
heard before legislation is passed affecting non-academic activities. 
With certain exceptions, it manages all such activities. The execu- 
tive board of the commission has charge of the discipline of the 
college. At the University of Colorado the council has the power 
of suspension, subject to appeal to the president. At Stanford the 
conference consists of representatives from what is termed the 
"living groups ;" that is, dormitories, fraternities, etc., and each 
representative is made responsible for his group. There is a meet- 
ing of the conference every two weeks and attendance is compul- 
sory. There is, likewise, a judicial committee of the conference, 
called the council, which considers all cases of discipline and has 
power to assign the penalties of expulsion,, suspension, probation, 
and extra hours, subject to the approval of a faculty committee. 

At California the council (called the undergraduate student 
affairs committee) considers all cases of discipline and makes 
recommendation to the president of the university, who usually in- 
duces the student to accept the action of the committee without 
reference to the faculty. ■ Confidence in the council is said to be 
constantly increasing. Reed College has a council of six members 
elected annually by vote of all the students. The council has charge 
of discipline and student affairs, including the honor system. 

The Dartmouth Palaeopitus, compared with these western coun- 
cils, is little more than an honorary organization. I have been 
rather favorably impressed with the results of the western system, 
and I am inclined to think that, if the Palaeopitus were somewhat 
differently constituted — especially if it included representatives 
from all classes — and were given more definite powers and respon- 
sibilities, it might be a^ greater help in the administration of the 
college, not only in matters of discipline, but also in the general 
spirit of the student body. 

26 



The Honor Systcyn 

In those institutions in which the honor system is carefully ad- 
ministered, where students report cases of dishonesty and the pen- 
alty is severe, the system a success, i have found it in operation 
in about half the institutions visited. 

In the Sheffield Scientihc School it is administered by a com- 
mittee of five students, containing at least three members chosen 
from and by the student council. Students report cases of dis- 
honesty and the penalty of expulsion may be inriicted by a unani- 
mous vote of the committee, it is agreed that the system is success- 
ful. The students of Yale College voted not to adopt the system, 
on the ground that they were unwilling to report fellow students. 

At Amherst results are by no means so satisfactory. Students 
sign a statement to the efiect that they have not given or received 
help during the examination, lliey do not report cases of dishon- 
esty, thougn at the outset they agreed to do so. Information comes, 
therefore, only from members of the faculty. Cases are handled 
by a committee of students and the penalty is comparatively light, — 
suspension. The situation at Williams is much better. Students 
report cases of dishonesty to a student committee, which makes 
recommendation to the faculty. The penalty is more severe, — sus- 
pension for freshmen, expulsion for upperclassmen. As a matter 
of fact, the instructor is present at the examination a good deal of 
the time. Indeed, the students recently petitioned that he be re- 
quired to be within reach during the whole examination in order 
to answer questions. 

It is the general, though not unanimous, sentiment at Princeton 
that the system is a success. It is said that the most important 
result is the development of a sense of honor. Cases of dishonesty 
are reported by the students and handled by a student committee; 
the penalty is expulsion. There are several cases every year. The 
system at Princeton is rather more far-reaching than elsewhere; 
it is applied to every kind of work, including class quizzes, and a 
member of the Latin Department has applied it to the use of trans- 
lations. 

At Western Reserve there is disagreement as to the success of 
the system. Some instructors think there is much dishonesty, and 
one man who spoke highly of the system admitted that if a student 
sees another cheating he is more Hkely to warn him than to report 
him. At Oberlin reports are made by students to a court appointed 
by the student senate. Expulsion is the penalty for serious cases ; 
suspension or reprimand for those less serious. Results are said to 
be entirely satisfactory. At Minnesota the system appears to be 
working fairly well, though certain officers of the university speak 
of it very doubtfully. There are five or six cases of dishonesty a 
year in final examinations. • In serious cases the penalty is suspen- 
sion for one or more years, but students suspended for this cause 

27 



rarely return to college; in less serious cases the student loses credit 
for the course. The system is applied to all written work, but is 
not used in freshman courses. 

At Occidental, Reed, and Washington, results are said to have 
been entirely satisfactory. At Stanford and California, on the 
other hand, the honor system appears at its worst. At California, 
by the way, it is called honor spirit, not the honor system; and, in 
fact, at neither place is it sufficiently organized to be called a system. 
Departments or individual instructors use their discretion m the 
matter of leaving the examination room. There is no pledge and 
students refuse to report one another. At Stanford it is the duty 
of members of the conference (the student council) to report or, 
warn students whom they see cheating. They are required to report 
a second offense. In both places the penalty is very light, — loss of 
credit in the course for the first offense. Dishonesty is common 
and few cases are reported. Students at Stanford admit that, in 
some courses, there are epidemics of cheating. They offer the 
naive excuse that, since some instructors remain in the room and 
others dd not, they do not regard the honor system as definitely 
established. There was a thorough investigation last year and no 
doubt conditions have already been improved. 

It is apparent that the honor system cannot be operated success- 
fully unless students agree to report one another and carry out 
their agreement in all cases, regardless of personal or social con- 
siderations. In places where it works well they tell of students who 
have reported members of the same fraternity. Moreover, the pen- 
alty for dishonesty must be severe, — nothing short of expulsion. 
A system that tolerates the first offense or allows it to go with a 
warning or a reprimand is very likely to become a dishonor system. 

At two other institutions, Ohio State and Wisconsin, though the 
honor system nominally does not exist, instructors may leave their 
examination rooms if they wish. Practically, the situation is like 
that at Stanford and California. At Wisconsin conditions appear 
to be pretty bad. The only penalty for dishonesty is the loss of a 
few hours. At Chicago, though the honor system is not in use, 
cases of dishonesty are reported to a student committee which may 
make recommendation to the faculty. The penalty is light : for 
the first offense, loss of credit in the course. 

Where the honor system is not in use, the conduct of examina- 
tions is usually left to the various departments ; that is, instructors 
are made responsible for their own examinations. Nowhere except 
at Harvard — where graduate students serve as proctors — have I 
found a proctoring system operated entirely from the office, as at 
Dartmouth ; or an examination schedule managed in such a busi- 
nesslike way and with so few cases of dishonesty. It seems to me 
that it is as near perfection as any part .of our administrative system. 
Regarding the honor system I am inclined to agree with Dean 



28 



Briggs that "it ministers to a mistaken sensitiveness, endangers the 
authenticity of the college degree, and imposes on the conscientious 
student a duty he is better off without." 

The Attitude of Students tozvard their College Work 

If we may rely upon the memory and judgment of instructors 
who have gone from Dartmouth to other institutions, we have no 
reason to congratulate ourselves upon the attitude of our students 
toward the requirements of the College. Almost everywhere — even 
in New England — when I asked a man to compare Dartmouth 
students with others, I received the reply, "The students here are 
more serious ;" or, "They learn their lessons better." 

I give these criticisms for what they may be worth, without un- 
dertaking to express an opinion as to the justice of them. It is 
not surprising to hear such statements in the central states or in 
the west. As I have already said, most of the students in those 
parts of the country not only attend classes but learn lessons as a 
matter of course. There are just as many — perhaps more — poorly 
prepared, but there are by no means so many who persistently 
neglect their work or are satisfied with a passing mark. I got an 
interesting criticism at Minnesota, to the effect that students there 
were not so mature as in the east, that they lacked originality and 
])Ower of independent thought, but were more serious-minded and 
learned their lessons better. 

Reed College offers the best illustration of the western attitude. 
I was particularly impressed by the fact that at that institution, 
when an instructor does not appear, a student is chosen to preside 
and the class goes on just the same. Once when the whole faculty 
had to go away to a meeting lasting three days, the work of the 
college was carried on in this way without interruption. 

In 1902 the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted: "That 
a committee be appointed to inquire and report what further meas- 
ures may be advantageously taken to improve the quality of the 
work done in satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of 
Bachelor of Arts." This committee made the surprising discovery 
that the average amount of work done by an undergraduate in a 
course was less than three and a half hours a week outside of the 
class-room. That is, the average undergraduate was working in 
all less than twenty-six hours a week. The committee recently 
appointed at Chicago, primarily for the standardization of courses, 
will undoubtedly proceed along the same line as the Harvard com- 
mittee. A similar investigation at Dartmouth might produce some 
interesting results. 

Fraternities and Chihs 

In several places I have heard the complaint that fraternities 
exercise a bad influence uiion either the intellectual or the social 
life of the college community. This criticism was made most 

29 



emphatically perhaps at Yale (the Scientific School), Williams, 
Ohio State, and California. On the other hand the senior societies 
at Yale seem to exert a particularly good influence. It is a well- 
known fact that men are elected to these societies who have accom- 
plished something; not merely because they are good fellows. It 
is also true that they show a high regard for literary abihty and 
achievement and will not consider a man who drinks to excess or is 
morally objectionable. The ambition to become a member of one 
of these societies has done much for college spirit at Yale. I should 
mention also the very successful Elizabethan Club at Yale, a club 
for men of intellectual interests, and an interesting parallel to our 
new organization, The Arts. 

Fraternity conditions at Brown seem to be excellent. There 
are many alumni in Providence who endeavor to keep up the stand- 
ard of scholarship in their fraternities. One alumnus has given 
a cup for the fraternity making the best record. 

At California there has recently been a great improvement in this- 
matter, due to the efforts of the fraternities themselves. The aver- 
age standing of fraternity members is now higher than that of non- 
fraternity men. An interesting plan has been; put into operation 
which provides for fellowships, one to be maintained by each 
fraternity, the incumbent to receive board and room and, in return, 
to do some tutoring for his fellow members and, in general, to act 
as the representative of the fraternity in relations with the faculty. 

We might learn something, I think, from fraternity rules at 
Stanford. After dinner in one fraternity house I noticed that 
members who had been playing and singing disappeared at 7.30, 
and was told that it was the rule that there should be no music 
after that hour, and that freshmen were required to study in the 
evening. The same rule, I found, was in force in other houses, 
and also the rule that there should be no card playing except 
between Friday noon and Saturday night. Fraternity upperclass- 
men make their freshmen mix with others and there is no dis- 
crimination against non-fraternity men. The Union (like our Col- 
lege Club) is a real club for everyone including members of the 
faculty. 

At Wisconsin, on the other hand, conditions seem to be rather 
bad. Only comparatively rich men can belong to fraternities. 
Non-fraternity men are waiters in fraternity houses and, in general, 
therd is a sharp distinction between fraternity and non-fraternity 
men. Strangely enough, however, in general student affairs the 
non-fraternity men, through the student council, have the upper 
hand. They do not allow the fraternities to give house-parties and, 
it is said, were recently considering the prohibition of evening 
clothes. 



30 



VII. Miscellaneous 

I may note finally a few points which seem to deserve considera- 
tion and have not found a place under more specific headings. 

In several institutions it is the custom to have frequent informal 
faculty meetings in the faculty club house for the discussion of col- 
lege business. I attended such a meeting at Columbia and another 
at Stanford. In both cases someone had been appointed to open 
the subject and the discussion was general and interesting. At 
Columbia it is the custom for this informal meeting to make 
recommendations to the faculty, and, as the two bodies are identi- 
cal, the informal meeting may do a good deal of business. At 
Stanford, though no vote was taken, it was practically decided at 
the meeting I attended to adopt the four-quarter year. At the 
University of Washington similar informal meetings are held, not 
limited, however, to the discussion of academic subjects. We have 
had a few meetings of this sort at Dartmouth, but it occurred to 
me that we might make rather more of them than we do. 

I was struck also with the possibilities of the Columbia forum, 
an occasional meeting of students and facultv for the free discus- 
sion of matters of current college interest. There is a similar de- 
vice at California, the University Meeting, as it is called. Presi- 
dent Wheeler speaks highly of this meeting as a means of develop- 
ing civic consciousness. 

It was something of a surprise to find that the preceptorial sys- 
tem at Princeton had dwindled until it is now applied almost exclu- 
sively to advanced English courses and the studies of the social 
science groun. Not only was it very expensive, but it was found 
to be superfluous in courses with many sections and in advanced 
courses with few students. So. as preceptors went away, their 
places were not filled. The system is now on a sound basis, and it 
is thought that it will survive in its present form. 

There is a growing college interest. I think, in the development 
of intramural sports, due partly to a reaction against the exaggera- 
tions of intercollegiate sports. Reed College is a good example of 
what may be done where intercollegiate sports are forbidden. 
There is an intense interest in inter-class grames of all sorts : every- 
one seems to take part in some kind of game ; and the whole situa- 
tion seemed to me verv healthv. The facultv at Western Reserve 
has been giving much attention to this subiect. At Princeton 
since 1910 the intracollegiate athletic association has been a formal 
organization havin? fourteen dififerent sports under its supervision. 
As the president says, in his report for 1915. this organization is 
unique. The success of the work, he savs, is shown by the crowds 
of men who frequent the gvmnasium. the tennis courts (there are 
twentv-eieht and there should be twice as manv). the lake and the 
baseball fields, to take part in practice or contests for the various 
championships. In 1914-1915 there were 842 men on non-varsity 

31 



teams. At Harvard much attention is being given to freshman sports, 
especially to freshman interdormitory games. Moreover, fifty- 
three tennis courts are in constant use. In this phase of college 
life we are not keeping up with other institutions. The Outing 
Club provides certain forms of exercise in the winter, but several 
additional handball courts would be of great benefit and funds, if 
available, could probably not be spent to greater advantage than in 
the construction of additional tennis courts. 

In many places I have found a system of extension courses and 
what may be called extension lectures. Even in Massachusetts 
such lectures are given by members of the various college faculties, 
the expense, in some cases at least, being defrayed in one way or 
another by the communities where the courses are given. 
It has occurred to me that the Dartmouth faculty might do some 
work of this sort outside of Hanover, to the advantage of the 
College as well as to that of the communities where such lectures 
might be given. I find that college teachers regard the payment 
for these lectures as a very welcome addition to their incomes. 
Moreover, there is no reason to assume that there would not be as 
much demand for lectures of this sort in New Hampshire as in 
other states. I feel strongly that there is an opportunity here for 
Dartmouth to prove her usefulness to the state, and I would sug- 
gest the appointment of a committee — possibly of trustees and 
members of the faculty — to consider the advisability of such a 
plan and the possible methods of its operation. 

I wish to express to the trustees my sincere gratitude for the 
opportunity they have given me to undertake this investigation ; 
to me personally it has been a work of great interest and value. 

Respectfully submitted, 

H. E. Burton. 
Dartmouth College. October, 1916. 



J/: 



526 - 




\0 -7^. '"^WM^' <o 









. V^"./ 




















